What is a "religion"?

Nothing against avatars

Dear Juan, you are wondering: "I suspect a part of your initial concern relates to my choice of avatar, the coyote."Absolutely not.

I have used the avatars of posters here to write posts for the sheer joy of writing, like talkativeness in oral speech.

Once I observed for Vaj that his then new avatar was the Chinese Goddess of Mercy, asking whether he does pray to her; because Vaj tells me that Buddhists -- and he is one -- do not pray to gods nor to saints.

Otherwise my observations about avatars have no critical overtones, certainly not in a negative vein whatever. It is all pure postal talkativeness. At most flippant impertinences.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Does not religion come from the latin, "Religare," meaning "to reunite again?"

So, religion means, "to reunite again." It is "yug" or "yoga," a union with God.
 
neoxenos said:
Does not religion come from the latin, "Religare," meaning "to reunite again?"

So, religion means, "to reunite again." It is "yug" or "yoga," a union with God.
Click to expand...

Namaskar,

Yes, that's the etymological explanation which is often cited. It's the ideal as I see it. But in reality religions are not that or no longer that, because dogmas, superstitions and other irrational aspects have crept in over time.
 
[font=&quot]
Avinash said:
Namaskar,

Yes, that's the etymological explanation which is often cited. It's the ideal as I see it. But in reality religions are not that or no longer that, because dogmas, superstitions and other irrational aspects have crept in over time.
Click to expand...
Of course.

There are many types of people who follow religion, they are related with the three centers of the human being: 1) instinctual-sexual-motor, 2) emotional, and 3) intellectual, 4) The Unconfused

The First Type follows the religion that they are born into. They never question it. They attend ritual/church in a mechanical and conditioned way, and feels completely superior to the other groups mentioned here.

The Second Type follows the religion that feels the best, the one that makes them feel good. Perhaps this is the one that says, "Believe, and you shall saved!" This one does not need to get into the gritty details about the religion, just that one gets emotional stability from it. They feel superior to the other groups.

The Third Type is the intellectual who wishes to prove/disprove god, faith, religion, etc., through the study of scripture. This type feels completely superior to the others and likes to prove it through civilized argument. They want to reach God through the intellect.

The first three types constitute more than 99% of all people in the world, they exist within the Confusion of Tongues. When the emotional man speaks to the intellectual man, they do not understand each other. No one can understand or accept what the others have to say because they each within their own sphere of understanding. They constitute the Tower of Babel.

The fourth type is the radical individual who has removed the Mechanical Center of Gravity and created a Conscious Center of Gravity within, who understands the world's religions not just superficially but with complete understanding and within completely and absolute harmony.

Until humanity has become the Fourth Man, then true religion does not exist.[/font]
 
It sounds like a system of claiming psychological and intellectual superiority over other people, little more - spiritual faschism again.
 
I said:
It sounds like a system of claiming psychological and intellectual superiority over other people, little more - spiritual faschism again.
Click to expand...
Brian,

this is a perfect example of how reputation would work on this forum... not too subtle hint :D
 
Well, I've been absent for a while, but I thought I'd pop in on this one, with a few comments (and hello to all).

Religions are founded on revelation - and revelation (in whatever form) are delivered to all men for their salvation/deliverance - but the emphasis is on 'all men' - not an elite, be it secular or spiritual. There is a requirement upon those with given gifts/graces to help those less enabled, but no religion sets out to save a given number only.

In a certain sense a religion comprises a world unto itself, and as much as one might comment on another world, unless one is of that world, one has no authority to speak - all one can do is assume. Zen, particularly but not exclusively, says - start now, question later - and as ever, many of the questions resolve themselves along the way.

No man is beyond error - in reference I might cite the case of René Guénon - widely regarded East and West as the most gifted metaphysician of the 20th century (acknowledged as the only Westerner to have understood the Vedanta) - who held that Buddhism was a 'Hindu heresy' until doctrine was properly explained to him.

Someone once said man does not choose the tradition - the tradition chooses the man.

The man who stands outside religion, claiming the virtues of all, in fact has none - it's like standing in a station knowing all the trains - this may be so, but you're not going anywhere.

Conversion - the call from one tradition to another - is very, very rare.

Spiritual advancement outside of a 'religious cover' invariably means one seeks for self-advancement without subjecting the self to the necessary discipline. In short it implies that man knows better than God.

Huston Smith called religions 'the distilled wisdom of the human race'

Thomas
 
Namaskar,

A religion is not the same thing as a tradition. I would argue that some traditions or spiritual paths are not religions in that they consider themselves as part of a larger continuum or network of traditions.

Spiritual practices and their accompanying spiritual philosophy are based on "revelation" if you like. Those who discovered how these practices worked were graced with the ability to transfer their knowledge to others. Not everything in religion however is part of this type of revelation. A lot of it is creative writing.

It is not easy to understand another tradition if you have not been part of it but to say that the other traditions are a "world of their own" goes too far IMHO. There are far too many overlaps in practices and the spiritual philosophies to suggest they are that hard to understand if you are an "outsider", even if those practices at first sight seem a bit strange or unfamiliar.

I don't believe in the whole idea of conversion. Conversion suggests that if you change your tradition, you leave one world behind you and enter (are "reborn") into another world leaving all your progress of the past behind you.
Trying to follow a spiritual path without joining a tradition is indeed unwise because the interaction with and stimulation from other practitioners will help you greatly in keeping inspired and following the necessary discipline.

I know quite a number of people (friends, acquaintances) who have changed their tradition and especially many western people who haven't been raised with a religion are finding a tradition that suits their needs.

Andrew
 
Very nice to see you back, Thomas - you have been missed.
 
Buddhism is considered by some to be a religion and by others a philosophy. Personally I call Buddhism a way of life as it teaches as much about conduct in life as it does about spiritiuality.
 
Hi Phil -

That's a very good point, and probably worth a thread of its own.

In my own (Catholic) studies I have spent a lot of time rooting that pernicious little weed 'dualism' out of the teachings, but the thing reoccurs with alarming regularity and spreads like crazy.

The separation of religion and spirituality is a more recent example.

Thomas
 
I said:
Skeptic44 raised the interesting issue of Atheism being a "religion".

Personally, I find this hard to justify - "religious belief" essential revolves around the ritualised worship of a supernatural deity - at least, according to my initial perception.

So I would normally class Atheism - like Agnosticism - as a philosophy.

However, the issue is further complicated by Buddhism, which in itself and at its heart (certainly in some traditions) does not seem to deal with either the worship or acknowledgement of Supernatural beings - certainly not in the idea of Divinity.

So is Buddhism therefore a philosophy, rather than a religion? In which case, should I remove the link from the left-hand nav bar? ;)

Seriously, though - when does a personal philosophy actually become religious belief? What is actually required to define the differences between each? Are there actually key distinct differences? Or is there a muddy realm in meta-physics when personal belief cannot be defined wholly in terms of either a "religion" or as a "philosophy"?

An open query.
Click to expand...

Well .. being at work today with nothing to do at lunchtime I've time to ponder this. :)

When in doubt about this kind of thing I sometimes just go to a dictionary. The one I found at hand defines "religion" as follows:

1. belief in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship
2. expression of this in worship
3. particular system of faith and worship
4. thing that one is devoted to

So, going by this, I'd say that Buddhism could fit in with either 3 or 4, while atheism could certainly fit into 4, but not agnosticism, since I think that agnostics, by their very nature, are not devoted to anything. :D Perhaps its more about a certainty of belief in something, so much so that one will base one's life on it. Hmm ... I should add 'faith' in there as well, since one believes in these things without any certain evidence that they are true. If one believes in something because it has been demonstrated to them, in some tangible way, that it is true, I would not call that a religion.
 
Here we go again.

I contributed a good number of posts in this thread to examine what is religion.

And to the present I still have not come across any reasons which would make me change my conclusions about religion, what it is and other incidentals of religion.

Is atheism or agnosticism a religion?

Here I go again, with my findings:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.
Click to expand...
-- Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

In atheism and in agnosticism there is no realization of the latter part of my definition, namely to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

In Buddhism I distinguish between the Buddhism of the masses and the Buddhism of the elitists, an example of which is Vajradhara.

My definition is completely realized in the former; but in the latter there must be a more careful examination of the elitist Buddhists, but I come to the conclusion that whatever their protestations to the contrary, they are also like the Buddhist masses, into influencing the power or powers that be to react favorably to them.

I invite you to look up my posts in this thread at the start and for a good number of posts onward.

About dictionary definitions of things, one must consider whether the definitions are referring to the text world or to the world of the man-in-the-street.

The text world is very often the world of religion, for example religious people can talk on and on about so many things, but almost always in their text world; because when they come down to the world of the man in the street, they also all behave like everyman that is in the streets.

Pachomius2000
 
Re: Here we go again.

Susma Rio Sep said:
I contributed a good number of posts in this thread to examine what is religion.

And to the present I still have not come across any reasons which would make me change my conclusions about religion, what it is and other incidentals of religion.

Is atheism or agnosticism a religion?

Here I go again, with my findings:

-- Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

In atheism and in agnosticism there is no realization of the latter part of my definition, namely to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

In Buddhism I distinguish between the Buddhism of the masses and the Buddhism of the elitists, an example of which is Vajradhara.

My definition is completely realized in the former; but in the latter there must be a more careful examination of the elitist Buddhists, but I come to the conclusion that whatever their protestations to the contrary, they are also like the Buddhist masses, into influencing the power or powers that be to react favorably to them.

I invite you to look up my posts in this thread at the start and for a good number of posts onward.

About dictionary definitions of things, one must consider whether the definitions are referring to the text world or to the world of the man-in-the-street.

The text world is very often the world of religion, for example religious people can talk on and on about so many things, but almost always in their text world; because when they come down to the world of the man in the street, they also all behave like everyman that is in the streets.

Pachomius2000
Click to expand...
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. :)

I actually did read some of your posts and found them quite interesting, and certainly your definition is compelling. Unfortunately, I was at work and only had one free hour to read, think and discuss, so was not able to comment further on the topic.

My thought was just that, in most religions that I've come across, the adherents are quite often passionately and rigidly attached to their beliefs, often condemning those whose beliefs differ from theirs. And it often seems that atheists are among the most vocal and rigid of believers, often going out of their way to ridicule and to attempt to falsify other religions. Agnostics, on the other hand, freely admit to not knowing what is the truth of things and tend to keep an open mind, so I would hesitate to lump them in with the atheists.

I do agree with you about the limitations of dictionaries, however I often find them to be a good starting out point when attempting to narrow in on a topic of discussion.

Much enjoy these discussions. :)
 
About temperamental atheists . . .

The atheists you mention about are almost all who have 'transited' from a strict theistic background, like from a conservative Catholic or Fundamentalist home and community.

The atheists here might hate me for saying that. But I think if you really go into their background that is exactly what you will find out.

Why are they " . . . among the most vocal and rigid of believers, often going out of their way to ridicule and to attempt to falsify other religions"?

This might sound simplistic, but the truth or fact is in many instances simple and common of human behavior. Maybe we might call it sour grapes of an extreme degree.

Sour grapes of a sort, because it's strictly not that they had been eliminated from their original faith, but they departed from it in order to be free in their heart and mind for the quests of more satisfying objectives. Kind of self-justification for not remaining within their original faith. Some guilty conscience, perhaps.

But no need for all such rationalization and self-confirmation mechanisms. They can just say to themselves that my original religion is not satisfactory, and I owe it to myself to choose a path more in consonance with what I want in life. So there, all in the spirit of "All men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The essential trouble is because all of us have been conditioned by civilization and society to feel shame for not remaining loyal to our original alliances whether by previous free choices or by birth in a social group of religion or politics. This of course is an instrument of society to ensure its own perpetuation as a distinct entity.

But the freed or free man is always a master of his own fate, whatever alliances he is born into or had earlier chosen to incorporate himself into.

What about myself? I consider myself a relativist atheist and a relativist theist, actually a lapsed Catholic according to the disciplinary language of the Catholic Church; but I prefer to call myself a postgraduate Catholic.

Pachomius2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top